The future of the EU

[Dauphin]

Turkey is probably the most important one. The EU has been really *****y about Turkey admission

Is Turkey part of Europe? I guess you could class is as such, after all FIFA/UEFA and the Eurovision song contest organisers seem to think so. Perhaps Israel can join too!

Morroco's application was refused immediately due to not being on the European continent.

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by Hoek
Stefu and Dolphin: obviously, you didn't see my signature

Just try it, punk.

[Goingonit]

Originally posted by Sagacious Dolphin

Turkey is probably the most important one. The EU has been really *****y about Turkey admission

Is Turkey part of Europe? I guess you could class is as such, after all FIFA/UEFA and the Eurovision song contest organisers seem to think so. Perhaps Israel can join too!

Morroco's application was refused immediately due to not being on the European continent.

Turkey has Istanbul which is in Europe.

As for Morocco? But North Africa is closer to Europe than subsaharan Africa culturally, historically and ethnically.

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by Goingonit
Turkey has Istanbul which is in Europe.

So the European border is defined as being at the Bosphorous, and not the Turkish border.

Let me rephrase, is Turkey classed as a European country. I didn't think it was.

[Giancarlo]

Originally posted by Hoek
Germany is socialist? Hardly! They are about as socialist as the United States is.

On your standards it isn´t socialist.

[Hoek]

Part of Turkey is on the European continent, and Turks identify themselves much more closely with Europe than they do with the rest of the middle east. Beyond that, the EU need not be so picky as to restrict it so much by geography. I think that there could be a strong case made for Morocco or Tunisia to be allowed into the EU (their main problem is that they are not democracies) in terms of cultural similarity to Europe.

Britain and Ireland are not part of continental Europe, but they are in the EU.

So what is your definition of socialism? Sweden is legitimately classified as socialist because of the extensive state intervention in the economy, but Germany should not because it, like the United States, relies on free enterprise as the main source of economic growth.

In terms of a fighting force, you should realize that there has never been an integrated NATO fighting force. All military operations carried out by NATO are ad-hoc, and depend entirely on what each country is willing to commit to the particular situation. There is no standing NATO military, and cooperation has been quite difficult in the past. Allegiances would supposedly be to the Union, but fewer than 2% of all europeans have ever identified themselves politically as primarily European. Nationalism will cause the force to be extremely fractious and ineffective.

[Giancarlo]

Yeah, Tunisia is the most developed country in Africa after South Africa... and it has an extensive middle class. The country has fought for women´s rights and is an Islamic country. I agree Tunisia should join the EU, but Morocco... better give it a second thought.

So what is your definition of socialism? Sweden is legitimately classified as socialist because of the extensive state intervention in the economy, but Germany should not because it, like the United States, relies on free enterprise as the main source of economic growth.

Well you have a point. But still there will be too much disagreement because countries like Spain and Italy wouldn't get along with the others.

[Hoek]

I don't know about that...after all, The U.S. has Texas and South Carolina living in union with Oregon and Hawaii.

[Giancarlo]

Originally posted by Hoek
I don't know about that...after all, The U.S. has Texas and South Carolina living in union with Oregon and Hawaii.

They don't run their own militaries. The US Army is their to supress any uprising. The EU is just unrealistic.

And Ronald Reagan made a joke about Oregon when he was running... he said one of the lawmakers from their wanted to rename the state to Oreagan.

[monolith94]

Hoek: Those aren't the extremes, imo. . . The extremes would be Alabama and Vermont. . .

[Hoek]

They don't run their own militaries. The US Army is their to supress any uprising. The EU is just unrealistic.

That wasn't the point you were making. You were saying that conservative countries like Spain and Italy could not be in a political union with liberal countries like Denmark and Sweden. The countries' political leaning would be far less of an obstacle to political union than nationalism, which did not exist in U.S. states. In terms of the military, you should note that the U.S. did not have a standing army until Jefferson's first term. Until that point, states maintained militias, but there was no unified, standing fighting force for the U.S. Why would the U.S. supress European uprising, and why would there be European uprising if it was voluntary union?

And Ronald Reagan made a joke about Oregon when he was running... he said one of the lawmakers from their wanted to rename the state to Oreagan.

G-you are quite funny today. How does this relate at all to the discussion?

[MORON]

BANANA WINS

The Eu

[Dimorier Maximus]

The EU is just one big banana.

But seriously, why should Tunisia or Turkey be in the EU. Neither one of those countries are entirely European. Heck Tunisia is entirely in Africa.

Has Britain decided whether or not to change to the Euro yet?

[Sprayber]

So are you guys going to let the Russians in. And if you do, are you only going to allow Russia west of the Urals to join.

[samdejong]

Originally posted by Hoek


That wasn't the point you were making. You were saying that conservative countries like Spain and Italy could not be in a political union with liberal countries like Denmark and Sweden. The countries' political leaning would be far less of an obstacle to political union than nationalism, which did not exist in U.S. states. In terms of the military, you should note that the U.S. did not have a standing army until Jefferson's first term. Until that point, states maintained militias, but there was no unified, standing fighting force for the U.S. Why would the U.S. supress European uprising, and why would there be European uprising if it was voluntary union?



G-you are quite funny today. How does this relate at all to the discussion?

It is worth noting that the states each do have theirown military. That each state has its own militia was built into the bill of rights. AFter the civil war the idea was greatly dowjnplayed. But the idea still exists in the national guard.